www.owohrod.com.

Such as effectively regulating and preventing the ecologically, environmentally and hazardous activities of unscrupulous individuals, groups and companies.   Through dispossessing communities of their lands, their rights, and criminally exploiting and damaging the ecosystem and environment. Outside of this context, whether it is under the sphere of 'western 'democracy'', or Chinese , Russian and Cuban 'hybrid socio-capitalism', or any other forms of government.  People just want to be left to, as much as possible, do their own thing in getting on with their day-to-living. And to gradually improve their livelihoods. Of course, it is one thing when your government has taken it upon itself to tell you what to do and when and how to do it.  But it is quite another when that government has taken it even further, by telling you how and what to think, and severely curtail what you can and cannot say.  When it moves from trying to control you

I said  seemingly , because, had Vettel not, instinctively and understandably, as seems to be the consensus.  Attempted to reduced the personal cost of the error which Hamilton had pressured him into making.  By him, Vettel, intentionally or otherwise, obstructing Hamilton's attempt to overtake him.   As he cuts diagonally across the grass verge and back onto the circuit. A manoeuvre which was deemed an unsafe reentry, by the much maligned FIA.  Then Hamilton might have succeeded in overtaking Vettel. Whether he would have been able to retain the position would have been another matter.   Had that been the case, it would not have been seen as Vettel being 'unfairly' penalised by the FIA, but rather Vettel being forced into making a costly error and being overtaken by the pursuing Hamilton.  Which is how Hamilton and many, if not most racers and drivers would have preferred it to have been. That, unfortunately did not happen, and, however muc

'Revolutions' continue to be a means of destroying, both both positive and negative aspects of society, and is not the best way of bringing changes. The leaders of the opposition forces are adopting the strategy of holding the country and the future of the Sudanese hostage.  Something which will not contribute anything positive towards resolving the crisis.  It can only worsen the plight of the people and make the country more insecure and unstable.  It is likely to lead to more conflict, a problem which is already multiplying on the African continent.  We can understand why the fall of this or that regime will or might be met with euphoria.  A sense of, 'we have won, we did it, we have destroyed it.' Had we not seen that taking place in Iraq, after the fall of Saddam Hussein? Had we not seen it reoccurring in Egypt?  And had we not seen it reoccurring in Libya? Of course we have?  And what has become of that euphoria; has any of the

This is another short video of ducks on the Canal, with the parents teaching their new brood the intricacies of being a duck and how to live a duck's life. Go on, take a look and listen in.

As the 'organisation of professionals', in their quest for power, have forgotten or ignored their professional ethics.  In their quest to seize the opportunity to  try to incite and pressure the people to sacrifice their own livelihoods. In their, the leaders' approach to fulfilling  their a pipe-dream of a better Sudan.  Of course it is legitimate and desirable that there should be a better Sudan society, built by the people of Sudan.  However, the problem is that this better Sudan is not going to be achieved by or through a 'people's revolution.'  There is nothing unique about what is currently happening in Sudan.  Contrary to what the leaders and spokesperson of this uprising has been saying, this has happened in Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, et al.  And none of these countries have yet been able to establish the peaceful, well-governed and prosperous society which is the likely desire of most of their citizens. None. The

'It seem to be of the nature of humans, that we are often distracted by and weigh too heavily, the 'what could have or did not happen', than we are by what has actually occurred.'  If for nothing else, and there were, indeed, many more race aspects which counted, the 2019 Canadian Grand Prix was most memorable for how it ended.  This was because it was Lewis Hamilton and Team Mercedes, and not Sebastian Vettel and Team Mercedes, that won it.   Even though the camera and the eyes of spectators at the Circuit Gilles Villenueve were not  deceiving them.   As it showed Sebastian Vettel's Ferrari car being the first to greet the Checkered Flag at the end of the 70th lap of the Grand Prix. The sad fact for Vettel and Team Ferrari - in fact, for everybody watching and probably those participating in the race, including Hamilton and Team Mercedes.   Was that Vettel lost the race on his way towards winning it, when he made a mistake or error in

It becomes an enforced one, and one which is enforced, at times, by the minority manipulating the power elites into putting into place the necessary systematic structures to achieve it. According to the guardians of 'western democracy', 'democracy' is the ideal form of government, since it allows the people to not so much decide how they are govern.  Since most of them will have inherited, born into the particular system of government which they have come to accept.  But rather because they, the people, by way of casting their votes, decide which party or movement governs them.  The 'western system of 'democratic' government', is a 'commoditised' one to a greater degree than those of other forms of governments.  Since it allows the competing parties to advertise and market their promised policies and candidates, like any other or most commodities within the 'free market system. Now, it is my belief that, for the masses of p

But what of the the unsighted person; the person whose eyes no longer, if ever they did, blessed them with the experiences which are available to the sighted person?  For these of our fellow humans,  daylight, the rising of the Sun, does not bring with it the dispelling of the darkness.  And any 'night-panic' which it might have harboured. For them, the sighted person might imagine, rightly or wrongly, that the world does not exist in the extremes and gradations of light and dark, or darkness.  But in a permanent state of darkness. There is no relief. And yet, for someone who has to live or try to live healthily and happily in 'the world of darkness.'  Might they not have to 'grade' their darkness into gradations of shades of darkness? Except for those of us who are dependent on our particular senses for our livelihood, we are likely to be in danger of taking all or particular ones for granted.  That is not surprising, since, again, exce

In other words, 'a people's revolution or revolt,' will, in my view, place them in a questionable position.   Just as how the government they are trying to overthrow might or is deemed to be in a questionable position.  We can debate which force is in the most or least questionable position, but that does not make one or the automatically make one more virtuous or less illegitimate than the other.  Committing a wrong to try to right a wrong is a mitigating factor, but not necessarily an absolving justification. But that is probably not a serious consideration for the leaders of the opposition.  For them, their main goal is to replace the current regime with a new one; preferably themselves.   And they, like any other force which wants power, are not averse to manipulating the people and public opinion to try to achieve and 'legitimise' it.  And so it is, that Sudan, like its historical sister, Egypt, is now, at least temporarily, rudderl

In the age of reason, it is important for people not to be told what to believe.  But rather that, through the process of the sharing of the relevant information and knowledge about a given topic or issue. Open and frank discussion, leading to increased understanding about it.  Should enable the respective parties to have a more  informed view about it, and review their previous position and decide where they now stand.  Which is what many people are arguing, a second referendum on Britain and the European Union, could contribute towards addressing Britain's Brexit crisis. A society which values 'freedom of thought and speech', should never make laws and/or use the people, willingly or unwittingly, to make some issues closed to public examination and discussion.  Out of bounds to being debated, as it were, because they are considered 'too sensitive' to be aired.  People have a right to not only 'believe' in a thing or to accept i

Have resorted to using the tactic of conflating all opposition towards Israel's occupation and oppression of the Palestinians, into the 'generic' label of 'antisemitism.'  Taken to its logical conclusion, it is literally removing all scope for anybody, including Jews, to be able to criticise, to challenge Israel's oppressive and inhumane actions towards Palestinians.  Without falling into the 'catch-all definition of antisemitism.' As such, 'antisemitism' and 'antisemitic' action could be seen as being, not just 'in the eyes, the mind of the perceiver.'  Like theistic religion, it can be seen as an article of faith, a belief, one which is or might be devoid of or does not have to have any proof. But as having some kind of  'Mosaic law' status. A 'divine' attribute, as it were.  Which, again, makes me feel uncomfortable, as it not only suggests, but tries to give confirmation to to the